6 Jan
2009
6 Jan
'09
3:50 p.m.
It's not "so bad," it's just an unnecessary limitation. If you really need a random access counting iterator, you'd be out of luck.
It seems to me that the standard should specify whether iterator::reference must outlive its iterator. Then the current counting_iterator is wrong. Or iterator::reference may die with its iterator, then reverse_iterator is wrong. If the C++ standard is quiet on this issue, maybe it should be clarified. -- Dr. Arno Schoedl · aschoedl@think-cell.com Technical Director think-cell Software GmbH · Invalidenstr. 34 · 10115 Berlin, Germany http://www.think-cell.com · phone +49-30-666473-10 · toll-free (US) +1-800-891-8091 Directors: Dr. Markus Hannebauer, Dr. Arno Schoedl · Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 85229